The Tale of Princess Kaguya (2013)

James Caan, Chloe Grace Moretz

Did I try and say American Sniper was emotional? I take it back. After watching this movie, American Sniper is a distant memory. The Imitation Game was a depressing commentary on human behavior? Pshhhh. You thought The Grand Budapest Hotel was stylistically leaps and bounds ahead of the other nominees? Only because it didn't have to go head to head with The Tale of Princess Kaguya. I could go on, but I think it's clear how I feel.

The Tale of Princess Kaguya is easily the best movie of the year. Easily. It's visually stunning beyond your average animated feature. The classic Japanese painting style evoke memories of a time before all animated movies looked so similar that no one can tell which studio made what. The animation also varies throughout the movie, moving seamlessly between crisper, cleaner images and rougher, more sketchy drawings that help draw parallels to a character's state of mind. This, combined with the score, allows the movie to more completely convey unspoken changes and feelings than regular movies.

It is also a deceptively simple tale. It is quiet and slow and relies on it's building of the story and its characters to carry the story from a fairy tale to a complex narrative on the human experience. If you look beyond the surface of it, it will make you question everything from your relationship with your parents, the role of money in the world, and what it means to be happy in life. One might construe the story as too slow and possibly a little boring in the beginning, but as with all thought-provoking films, you need to watch it all the way through before passing judgment.

I almost hate to point out the minor flaws because I so thoroughly loved this movie. I also hate how pretentious this will sound, but the Japanese animated movies are just not the same in English. I grew up watching My Friend Totoro and other Studio Ghibli films in their original Japanese with English subtitles, so this lost a touch of the magic the other possess with their full foreign experience. The Japanese language is so beautiful and it would help mask some of the dialogue that sounds a bit stilted when spoken in English. Also, we wouldn't be subjected to the voices of James Caan and Chloe Grace Moretz for two hours. But again, all these things can be forgiven when presented in a movie as complete and beautiful as this.

Final word: With the risk of sounding as though I have written an acceptance speech for a movie I did not create, I am grateful to the Academy for introducing me to this movie with its nomination. 

P.S. If you still feel like you can't take my word for it, this movie has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 100%!

American Sniper (2014)

Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller

It's taken me quite a few days to even begin to piece together a review for this movie because walking out of the theater, I wasn't quite sure what to think of it. The fact is, no matter how apolitical Clint Eastwood probably thought he was in making this movie, how you feel about it likely reflects your opinion on our involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan. The politics of war are impossible to escape.

From a pure movie standpoint, it's not great. It's incomplete, a little too Hollywood, and really chops up the pacing of the story. I'm sure it's popularity at the box office helped propel it to a Best Picture nomination, but I have little doubt it will walk away empty-handed. It's certainly not The Hurt Locker.

What this movie is, however, is emotional. By focusing the war on one man's journey--a man many people can feel like they relate to--Clint Eastwood shrank the topic from "The Iraq War" to "what we believe soldiers experience in the Iraq War." But the things is, there is no "typical" experience in war. There aren't even "typical" soldiers. Because for every soldier who is happy to fight for the country and has a heart of gold--as Kyle (Cooper) is portrayed here--there are others who are way too excited at the prospect of just killing people, those who simply don't want to be there, and everything in between. I do appreciate the attempt (albeit, briefly) to show these other personality types, but it's hard not to become slightly cynical at Hollywood's insistence on making a lead character as heroic as possible while glossing over any unpleasantness.

What do I mean by this? Kyle's scenes at home between tours are brief and only allude to his having PTSD--an issue that, if properly developed, could have brought a new dimension to this movie. While I am grateful that they mentioned it at all, having a mega-hit like this highlight a pressing problem in our military could have pushed the issue into our national discussion.

Speaking of those home stays... Kyle spends roughly three years abroad over the course of four tours. So why does his son age about 8 years in that time? I understand it's supposed to be a war movie, but with Kyle spending more time at home than in Iraq, and the passing references to his PTSD, more of his difficulty transitioning back to civilian life could have been shown. A random scene here or there of him staring at a black TV screen or flipping out over something benign is not really a complete picture of what PTSD looks like.

What did work, however, were the combat scenes. However you feel about this war--and our involvement in it--the fact is our soldiers deal with some very scary sh*t and I cannot imagine the feeling of not knowing if every person coming toward you is trying to kill you or not. Having known a great number of people who have served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I acutely felt these scenes as if the person behind the sniper rifle were a friend of mine. It may have felt manufactured to some, but I thought the majority of the interactions between soldiers, locals, and the situations they faced seemed very realistic.

The casting, in general, also works well. Bradley Cooper, in trying to bulk up to match his character, completely loses any semblance of a jawline or general attractiveness, but he manages a consistent Texan accent throughout, which--these days--is something to applaud. He plays a rather understated character and it's nice to see him recognized for a performance in which he's not an over-the-top crazy person. Sienna Miller is totally unrecognizable as a brunette, but perhaps her appearance is only a surprise because no one has seen her in a hit movie in so long. There are few notable characters beyond these two, so the highlight is that no one stuck out as not believable as a soldier.

Many of the criticisms of this movie stem from its omission of any sort of political statement about our involvement in Iraq, the non-existent WMD, or even the direction of military strategy in the area.* To which I say, it's a movie, people. Sure, I criticized the minimal attention paid to PTSD, but that affected the character directly. The politics of this war is another movie completely. Would I like to see a movie about that? Hell yes.

In the end, my biggest qualm about the movie actually had nothing to do with the simplification of Kyle's story to make him America's golden boy or a lack of a deeper political discussion on key issues, or even the choppiness between scenes. It's that a full 30 minutes at the beginning of the film that served little purpose. I know a back story needed to be built, but it was boring and after watching G.I. Jane, I'm convinced no man will ever seem tough for going through Navy SEAL training. I also could have used more of an explanation of exactly how he got into the sniper school. A single memory of deer hunting with his dad does not a sniper make.

Final word: If you can keep a level head about the fact that Kyle's life story has been Hollywood-ized, it's an emotional ride.

*I have also read quite a bit about the notable differences between Kyle's autobiography and this movie and understand why people are upset about some of the ahem, character changes. To which I say, read this article. It'll give you something to think about.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Jason Clark, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell

What do you want first: the good news or the bad? Personally, I always choose to hear the bad news first. That way I can end on a good note.

The bad news is this movie has a lot of lame moments. Most of those happen when you realize the budget was obviously cut from the scriptwriters and handed over to the visual effects team. The entire premise rests on the humans' need to get access to a dam near where the chimps have nested. A nest which from the chimps can actually see the humans' city. Yet the chimps assume there are no humans because they haven't come into contact with any in two years, despite the fact that they live probably 5-10 miles apart? (No, I'm not spoiling the plot. I promise.)

I know that chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA with humans and are therefore intelligent enough to learn languages and adapt to situations, but the fact that the chimps here can speak so much English--with proper grammar at that!--is questionable considering their lack of contact with humans for the past 10 years. And if they can all sign, why would they suddenly begin speaking aloud to each other? That's like going into a foreign community in which people can speak a bit of English and hear them speaking it to each other in their discussions when it makes absolutely no sense to do so. Unless, of course, you have an audience watching and you're trying to impress upon them that chimps are like, so similar to humans. Oh, and it's totally believable they ride horses! And fire guns! Because you know, if your entire stance as an ape is to resist the human way of life, naturally you'd do basically everything they do.

There is, as I said at the beginning, good news as well. The reason I watched this movie at all--an Oscar nomination for Best Visual Effects--is well deserved. Not only have the artists created realistic looking chimps, the gorillas are amazing and Maurice, the orangutan, is my absolute favorite. As a matter of fact, the facial expressions on the apes are so good they actually overshadow the actors (though really, that's not that hard. Jason Clarke? Really?) The action is also pretty good. Fights between chimps are way better than people because apparently the way chimps kill things is just to bang down on their chests with their fists. And the whole "simian flu" epidemic plot point felt current because of our recent Ebola obsession and now the Measles outbreak. Plagues decimating a population will never get old. That's why Outbreak was an awesome movie.

Final word: If Pocahontas and The Lion King were action films. But with really awesome apes.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone

For my high school senior English project, we each had to write an ethnography. I chose to study theater people. (Anyone who argues that theater folks don't have their own culture has clearly never met a thespian.) So over the course of a couple months, I conducted interviews and attended innumerable rehearsals of the play Hurlyburly. In a lot of ways, it was interesting to see the same show performed over and over and watch the growth of the actors and characters and how they evolved throughout, leading up to the actual debut.

This movie--centered around a premise of a play being performed again and again--unfortunately chose the wrong subject. Granted, I've never read Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, but from what I can tell, it's horribly boring in play form. Much like my disastrous experience with Nixon in China the opera, some things are not meant to be adapted for the stage.

Interestingly, the entire movie read a bit like a play--nearly every scene took place in the theater house and it all felt like one long take. With the running musical score and the shadowing of characters through the dark hallways, it reminded me of Anna Karenina, except that I actually liked this movie. And while I think the score here complimented the movie well, the drums were sometimes so loud it was hard to hear the dialogue over them.

Emma Stone in this movie reminded me of the girlfriend in That Awkward Moment. I know she was supposed to be a recovering addict, but was part of her recovery the avoidance of hairbrushes and make-up remover? I've seen girls crawl out of the gutter at running of the bulls that look more put together than her. Her acting is pretty good here--the first time I've ever thought that--(she should seriously consider remaining a blonde), but frequent close-ups on her massive raccoon eyes distract from the performance.

Edward Norton, on the other hand, is fucking phenomenal. To me, this is what the Best Supporting Actor Oscar should be about--a performance that is so good it is not only memorable, but outright scene-stealing. Edward Norton has played a wide variety of roles before, but I've never seen him quite like this. He's neither the sweet, innocent priest of Keeping the Faith nor the raging psychopath of American History X. His character is both straight-forward yet complex and you both like and dislike him. This latest performance only further convinces me that there is no role Edward Norton can't play.

This is not to say Norton completely overshadowed Michael Keaton. The casting of Keaton was brilliant, if for no other reason than the *wink, wink, nod, nod* toward Keaton's own career as being almost entirely known for the Batman movies. He does a brilliant job of playing a tortured soul who is so wrapped in his own history and narcissism that he cannot even see how desperate he is. And the interactions between the two are both hilarious and infuriating.

BUT, this movie becomes a bit too self-pitying and tortured about the difficulties of acting and celebrity. (And coincidentally, the difference between the two.) I don't pretend to comprehend the struggle of actors: trying to keep a semblance of yourself when all you do is pretend to be someone else; simultaneously pursing both fame and prestige--I'm guessing it's similar to being a professional athlete. While I can certainly appreciate a dark inner monologue and a fading sense of self, I think dwelling on the struggle of people who are paid millions of dollars to do a job most of us can only dream of causes the story lose a bit of its relatability to the masses. Not to say millionaires can't have problems (they probably have more than the average person, truthfully)--it's just seems a bit proselytizing to make an entire movie about it.

It definitely lacks subtlety in targeting large action franchises and sets this undertone of "little guy" vs. "big Hollywood" which I'm sure is a metaphor for this movie being released in our current times of guaranteed money from sequels. (Once you start thinking about it, everything in this movie feels like a frickin' metaphor.) Don't get me wrong--I've done my fair share of complaining about the number of sequels and mindless Hollywood movies streaming into theaters this day. But I do think that large action franchises (like Fast and Furious, for example, which I happen to enjoy) have their place in the movie-watching world. I don't really care that something like Transformers 4 was made (ok, I kind of do). I do care that when it was released, the other major movie options for viewers were Think Like a Man Too, 22 Jump Street, and A Million Ways to Die in the West. 

Final word: I liked it, but it's wayyyyy too artsy for the average viewer. Even the title is out there.

P.S. If you're wondering why I failed to mention Naomi Watts' performance, well, let's just say it wasn't an oversight. She added exactly as much to the film as she did to my review of it.

The Boxtrolls (2014)

Ben Kingsley, Elle Fanning

I read a fascinating article awhile back about Facebook's algorithm and how quickly your feed can change based on what you "like." Well, I made the mistake of "liking" Focus Features page, which subsequently fed me about 8,000 posts about The Boxtrolls -- the making of it, the trailers for it, and how it was doing at the box office each week. I actually un-liked the page it became so spammy. By extension, I sort of also already hated this movie. Just on principle.

So imagine my surprise when the movie turned out to be *gasp* good! It might sound naive, but I really didn't expect it. I mean, this is a cast headlined by Dakota Fanning's younger sister and a man people can't even differentiate from the actor who plays Professor X. The animation is done in claymation, giving it a bit of a crude, student project-y feeling at times--worlds away from the slick, computer animation seen in both Big Hero 6 and How to Train Your Dragon 2. Yes, yes, I know they're supposedly on the cutting edge of stop motion animation. Maybe I just don't like stop motion animation. It didn't help that all the characters were ugly. Not just the trolls and the villains--all of them.

But much like awkward high school students, a movie can get by on ugly characters if they are funny and/or have great personalities. The trolls, with their names reflected on the dirty little boxes they wear, are lovable enough even to overlook the fact that they don't really speak English, yet somehow the boy grows up learning to speak it. In a lesser movie, I'd spend at least an entire paragraph ranting about the stupidity of that. (No, but seriously, that really bothers me. More so than the chafing nature and voice of Winifred.)

What I did enjoy, beyond the charm of the trolls and their propensity to hide in their boxes like turtles, was the detail in the clothing of the characters. They may have all been ugly people living in a dirty time, but the textures and fabrication shown here perhaps should have snagged the animators a nomination for Best Costume Design and Make-up. I know the Academy doesn't break down separate portions of an animated film for different category nominations, but it should. If Merida's hair in Brave could carry that movie, people should be talking a lot more about the costumes in this movie.

The plot breaks down like a cross between Tarzan and Dances with Wolves, right down to the white man as savior. Just kidding. At least you don't have to watch Kevin Costner awkwardly say "tatanka" while dancing around making bull horns.

Final word: My faith is partially restored in the Oscar nomination process.

The Judge (2014)

Robert Downey Jr., Robert Duvall, Vera Farmiga, Billy Bob Thornton, and the annoying guy from Law & Order: Criminal Intent

Boot cut jeans or not, Robert Downey Jr. is an attractive guy. He's got that whole "I'm an asshole but I have a soft side" charm that causes women to make poor decisions. Or maybe it's just that he looks that good in a suit. Whatever it is, he does it almost every movie these days. But I loved him back when he actually showed some range in his acting abilities. You know, before Ironman.

Alas, he is still doing it here. It fits with the plot, of course, but makes it a bit less interesting because characters that are that big shot smooth talkers are always quite predictable. Robert Duvall, on the other hand, really is a son-of-a-bitch here. He really removes any softness he might have inside to play a character you can't help but hate. He reminded me so much of Meryl Streep in August: Osage County, right down to the stringy hair and questionable health. In fact, the whole movie is a bit of a mash-up of August: Osage County and Sweet Home Alabama with a criminal twist thrown in.

The movie relies heavily on the dynamic between the Downey and Duvall, which is both its shining quality and also its downfall. While their bickering and unspoken tension holds the audience captive for the majority of the movie, there are a few scenes which seem highly implausible, given their relationship and the setting.

It has been criticized as being too schmaltzy, and it is. But I think anyone who has had a strained relationship with a parent can relate to this movie enough to look past the odd circumstance that brings the two together. What I cannot look past, however, is the casting of the guy from Law & Order: Criminal Intent. He is just the worst. It's unfortunate because I think his character could use a healthy dose of empathy from the audience, but his limited screen time and stilted acting make it close to impossible.

During a book club discussion of All The Light We Cannot See, one woman likened the plot to "when you look in the mirror and you're like, Am I wearing too many accessories?' " This movie is a bit like that. Did we really need the cute, young bartender and the younger brother with disabilities and the high school girlfriend and a tornado, on top of the existing court case and dysfunctional family dynamic? It all just felt like too much: too many plot twists, too many characters, and too much extra unnecessary drama.

Final word: It's the movie equivalent of a hot mess friend that has too much going on, but you still find her endearing.

The Imitation Game (2014)

Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightly, Matthew Goode

It's interesting how a single role can change a person's mind about an actor. Fairly or not, we judge actors based on the characters they play, as if the personality traits of the character mirror the traits of the actor. If you don't think this applies to you, ask yourself this: have you ever been able to watch David Schwimmer in anything that's not Friends without thinking of him as an awkward dork?

This movie was a turning point for me on Benedict Cumberbatch. I've made no secret of my dislike of him. Mostly because he reminds me of Voldemort. But somehow, this character made me break through his exterior and appreciate him for being a good actor. The fact that he's British and he voiced over much of the movie certainly didn't hurt. Somehow here, his voice had that confident, reassuring and pleasing quality that was missing when he voiced the wolf in The Penguins of Madagascar. Maybe he's just not meant to be a cartoon character.

But while I appreciated the smooth, clear voice explaining things like an omniscient narrator, it was an awkward and unlikely choice to have him telling state secrets to an anonymous police officer. Maybe by that point, his character didn't care anymore and just wanted to tell someone? I'm really grasping as straws as to why the writers chose that framing device for the plot.

The rest of the cast left me less conflicted. Keira Knightly, of course, I have an unbridled love for and it is always great to see her in a period piece not set in the 19th century. Matthew Goode. Sigh. I need to update my Top 5 list. Again. Even Allen Leech managed to change my opinion of him after despising him as Branson on Downton Abbey (which is completely rational, of course). And though I spent the whole movie trying to figure out why Mark Strong looks so much like a mean Andy Garcia, it was refreshing to watch a movie that had full cast of famous people without it being a real distraction.

It seems like I just can't escape WWII. In addition to watching two recent movies set in the time period, I also just read All The Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr which was, by the way, phenomenal. Reading that at the same time as watching this movie gave me some serious pause for reflection on the state of our history curriculum. I find it funny that we're consistently taught in the US that of course, we were the ones who "won" the war for the Allies, while of course, the British put out a movie about how they won it due to their intelligence. Do you think the French just don't care enough to stake some claim in this? And why doesn't anyone ever acknowledge that the Australians were there?

Ok, I'm off topic. But this movie was so fascinating in that it put some serious historical truth that made the viewers delve deeper into the ethical implications of how to fight a war while still keeping the plot entertaining. Maybe it's a British thing, but they seem to have a knack for making a potentially yawn-inducing subject--code breaking--interesting (See: The King's Speech). Though I will say this movie definitely focused on the "behind the scenes" and really only kept referencing the war with shouted lines like, "We're at war! People are dying!" You know, in case we forgot the purpose of all the code breaking.

However, the movie was beautifully layered in that it is, if only sparingly, a war movie. But it is also a bit of a spy movie, a biopic, and a thriller. It does a brilliant job of inserting a few light-hearted moments to lift what is overall, a very sad movie. And by sad, I mean utterly depressing if you spend more than a couple minutes really thinking about it. The war, the tactics, the decisions, and Turing's life. All of it.

Final word: Depressingly good.

P.S. Did this movie poster remind anyone else of the poster for The Social Network?